The 100 'Greatest' portraits (1)
I don't really like the idea of rating portraits - surely the joy of portraiture is the infinite variety of people and personalities observed. However looking through the Folio Book of the 100 Greatest Portraits (2004) I found it quite stimulating to appraise what was chosen, the portraits like the Mona Lisa (yawn) that are so famous they have to be included, those I already knew and admired, the ones less familiar to me which the book made me assess anew, and the ones I felt could be foregone in favour of a more wide-ranging and imaginative selection.
The authors seem to be aware of issues of race with some of the best choices being non-white subjects including Joshua Reynolds's 1665 portrait of the Polynesian Omai. But the authors (some of them women, who should know better) hardly seem aware of issues of gender, with not one of the 100 portraits being by a female artist, and a heavy weighting in favour of male subjects. There were too many portraits of monarchs - are the paintings of Henry VIII by Holbein or Charles I by Van Dyke really the most interesting portraits by these artists? I can understand including a portrait of Elizabeth I because her portraits are so distinctive, but I would have liked to see more portraits of ordinary people: Velazquez's little people, or his Aesop, for example, in addition to one of his infantas - as he is the greatest portraitist who ever lived we can justify a wider selection.
Some artists seem to have been chosen simply because the artist was too famous not to be included - Monet and Van Gogh for example - even though their work was not primarily in the portrait genre. Why was the portrait of Shakespeare included, which is not a great work, just a famous subject?
I would hope that the world has moved on in twenty years and that if a similar work were published today it would be more aware of the need for better representation of female artists and subjects: works by Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun, Mary Cassatt, Berthe Morisot, Gwen John and Laura Knight, and one of Reynolds’s imaginative portraits of women like the Waldegrave sisters or Sarah Siddons.
Could do better, but here are six that were selected that I very much enjoyed reading about:
Robert Campin, A Fat Man, c. 1430
The authors identify the subject as a Flemish nobleman Robert Van Massemen (c. 1390-1430). A great painter makes a portrait even of an ugly man compelling. 'Here is a man who is fat but not jolly, and whose vigilant seriousness is very deliberately stated', writes the author of the critique Lorne Campbell.
Piero della Francesca, Federigo da Montefeltro, 1472-3
I've always loved this portrait, which makes it quite clear that Federigo, a powerful condottiere, who transformed his city-state of Urbino, was not a man to be messed with. The extraordinary nose was not natural: da Montefeltro had lost it along with his right eye in an accident, so a profile portrait was essential. Apparently he was even more unprepossessing in real life - his nose was more bulbous and here the artist gives him aquiline features to associate him with the imperial eagle of Caesar. The artist innovates in his use of landscape, here used to signify da Montefeltro's lordship over his domains.
A Lady by Parmigianino, c. 1532-5
I just love the colour scheme 'a harmony of yellows and golds' and what David Ekserdjian calls her 'coolly appraising stare'.
Juan de Pareja, c. 1650, Diego Velázquez
Ever since I read I, Juan de Pareja (1966) by Elizabeth Borton de Treviño, I have loved this portrait. He was Velazquez's assistant and and eventually became an artist in his own right. At a time when most black people were shown as servants and slaves in a subservient position to their masters, their presence merely a signifier of their owner/employer's exalted status, here is a proud, independent man; only the great artists Velazquez and Rembrandt were seemingly capable during this period of acknowledging the dignity and humanity of black people as subjects in their own right.
The Condesa de Chinchón by Francisco Goya, 1800
I already knew and liked this portrait, but I didn't realise what a sad story is represented here. Maria Teresa was a cousin of the King and at 17 was obliged to marry the court favourite and womaniser Manuel Godoy, rumoured lover of the Queen. She is shown pregnant with the child Godoy hoped would consolidate his ties to royalty, who turned out disappointingly to be daughter. Godoy was said to have dismissed her as 'pathetic and indifferent', but she had the last laugh, gaining her freedom in 1808 following the Napoleonic invasion, when she repudiated her husband and went to live alone with her daughter. As Xavier Bray remarks 'Goya's masterpiece captures her fragility and endearing sensitivity', concealing perhaps, just a hint of steel.
Shon-ta-yi-ga (Little Wolf, Iowa) by George Catlin, 1844
Catlin's Indian Gallery was dedicated to 'rescuing from oblivion the looks and customs of the vanishing races of native man in America'. The portraits toured in Europe and caused a sensation, with fourteen Iowas, including the subject, accompanying the exhibition. Catlin makes striking use of bold colour, red 'the colour of blood, the colour of life' (Baudelaire).